McDaniel v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably State v. Carmichael (1986), Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley (1989)
2 district · 50 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6013 · 26 U.S.C. § 6321 (Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966) · 26 U.S.C. § 6323 · 26 U.S.C. § 7403 · 26 U.S.C. § 7424
Relies on United States v. Rodgers · United States v. Pioneer American Insurance · United States v. Mitchell · United States v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of United States · Sampson v. Hunt
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Intervention of right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) When a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter substantially impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. “(c) Motion to intervene and practice in intervention. (1) A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in K.S.A. 60-205. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. The same procedure shall be followed when a statute of this state gives a right to intervene. . . .” (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 60-224.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common . . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roe v. State · In Re Doe
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.